Predicotron: What will be the ultimate result of the Russo-Ukrainian War?

[Sheilbh]

40 years ago was 1982.  Definitely a higher risk of nuclear war then.  Do you recall in 1983 when the USSR shot down that Korean jetliner?  Plus Afghanistan had been invaded by the USSR, and Reagan was talking abou an "evil empire"?

Or not known and accidental but Able Archer which is probably the closest we've come to end of the world.

[mongers]

Why isn't there an explicvit 'WW3 happens' option?

Because that and possible nuclear war is at its biggest possibility in more than 40 years.

40 years ago was 1982.  Definitely a higher risk of nuclear war then.  Do you recall in 1983 when the USSR shot down that Korean jetliner?  Plus Afghanistan had been invaded by the USSR, and Reagan was talking abou an "evil empire"?

Nope I deliberately included most of the 80s, then the actors were more understandable or predictable in their actions, than Putin is now:
 
The Korean airliner was a well defined crisis and containable.
Afghanistan was a developing disaster for the USSR than was largely contained, do you recall much cross border attacks by the Soviets into Pakistan?
The Evil empire stuff certainly annoyed the European left, was largely for internal US politics, Americas foreign policy towards the USSR was well sign posted and carefully managed ie the introduction of cruise missiles and Pershings into the European theatre. 

Sure the chances of a tripwire or accidental conflict were real, see Able Archer 83(?), but with Putin's huge gamble in the Ukraine it's very unpredictable.

[Admiral Yi]

I wasn't around for 62 so can't judge, but honestly I've never felt like we're all that close to nuclear armaggedon.

[mongers]

I wasn't around for 62 so can't judge, but honestly I've never felt like we're all that close to nuclear armaggedon.

My older friends who I've talked to definitely thought it was a probability then.

One of them was newly signed up and doing his basic training in the British army during that October, he said he was bricking it as an 18 year old. And he wasn't any sort of coward, as he went on to do some shadowy SF type stuff in the 60s.

[The Brain]

And he wasn't any sort of coward, as he went on to do some shadowy SF type stuff in the 60s.

Damn hippies.

[Josquius]

Also an interesting point on Russias take over of crimea is it swung the electoral calculus in Ukraine such that it would already swing far more western even if it didn't have new reason to hate Russia. There are pros and cons for both countries in having crimea.

Ukraine had a very strong pro-Russia fraction for the first 25 years of the country's life.  The first two Presidents (Kravchuk and Puchma) were ex-communists with no strong ideology (and besides this was during Yeltsin), but by 2004 and the Orange Revolution while the western-facing Yuschenko ultimately won, it was hard fought with the pro-Russian Yanukovuch.  And Yanukovych proceeded to win the next election - again on a pro-Russian message.

But then came the 2014 Maidan revolution, plus the seizure of Crimea and other territories.  As I understand it there is now no meaningful appetite for pro-Russian political parties in Ukraine.

Look at typical election maps and it tended to split 50-50 down the middle, with Crimea a significant part of the russian side.

Eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election

Crimea in Russia breaks that even absent any other Russian moves.

[FunkMonk]

At this point I think Putin, as the prime actor in all this, has to decide whether he wants to go all in or cash out and try again later.

A) If he goes all in, I would expect an eventual Russian victory in the conventional war followed by years of an insurgency mire that brings down his government.

B) If he cashes out, he agrees to some terms that extract some concessions from the Ukrainians (e.g., recognition of Crimea to Russia and the Donbass republics), waits five years and tries again after Zelensky becomes unpopular, assassinates him and swoops in with VDV into Kyiv again.

If Putin is rational I would expect he chooses option B.

[The Brain]

Giving up Crimea (and the letter combinations) may likely be the sacrifice necessary to gain peace. And FWIW Crimea has a lot less to do with Ukraine than Karelia had to do with Finland. Giving up Karelia was very bitter for the Finns, it was in some ways the spiritual heart of Finland, and also had the historically very significant city of Viborg. But giving it up in 1940 was good policy I think.

I have a book published in Finland after the Winter War that describes Karelia, the land that was lost, with lots of photographs. It's sad to think that the not rich but forward-looking towns, with their little industries proudly displayed, and beautiful farming communities etc, just disappeared. The people fled, and the Russians reduced it to a wasteland. I remember travelling through Viborg in 1991, and Jesus Christ. But moving forward is the way. Remembering what was taken from peace-loving people is important, but what is lost is lost.

I hope that Ukraine wins a great victory against Russia and isn't forced to make hard choices. But this seems unlikely.

[Savonarola]

I voted stalemate, but thus far

I thought Poutine wouldn't launch a full scale invasion. Biden had all but given him permission to seize the Donbas; so I assumed he'd be satisfied with that, (for now...)

Once the invasion began I thought Biden would have difficulties securing all but the most minor sanctions; prior to the invasion the majority of Americans hadn't supported the US even being involved in the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.

Also once the invasion began I thought the Russian war machine would quickly and easily overrun Ukraine; it's enormous as compared to Ukraine's army.

So, I wouldn't trust my predictions.

[Barrister]

At this point I think Putin, as the prime actor in all this, has to decide whether he wants to go all in or cash out and try again later.

A) If he goes all in, I would expect an eventual Russian victory in the conventional war followed by years of an insurgency mire that brings down his government.

B) If he cashes out, he agrees to some terms that extract some concessions from the Ukrainians (e.g., recognition of Crimea to Russia and the Donbass republics), waits five years and tries again after Zelensky becomes unpopular, assassinates him and swoops in with VDV into Kyiv again.

If Putin is rational I would expect he chooses option B.

Plan B is not an option.  He can't try again in 5 years.

If it's that kind of resolution it's unlikely sanctions will be completely lifted, thus making it harder to Russia to re-arm.  Despite the US warning for weeks that Russia was going to invade they still managed some level of surprise because nobody believed they would do it.  They'll never get that again.

They West would help re-arm Ukraine like crazy.  It was only after the shooting started that many states finally agreed to ship offensive weaponry.

Now Russia could fix some of their problems - like their communications systems, and arrange for better supply chains.  But I don't think they'd be in any better situation than now.

Finally Putin is 69 now.  In 5 years he's 74.  He wants to finalize his legacy and knows he doesn't have a lot of time to do it.

[grumbler]

Or not known and accidental but Able Archer which is probably the closest we've come to end of the world.

Able Archer was not a particularly close call.  No one at any time believed that there were birds in the air.

Nov '79 was far worse.  The US National Command Authority was in fact convinced that the US was almost certainly under nuclear attack.  A nuclear attack simulation program had mistakenly been loaded into the operational computer system and NORAD reported over 2200 bird in the air, with impact times in the tens of minutes.  Lack of radar confirmation prevented the US launch.  It would have been a bad day for the world if there had been a solar flair right then that blinded the radars.

[The Brain]

There was also the hacker teenager who thought he was playing a game.

[PDH]

There was also the hacker teenager who thought he was playing a game.

Don't drag Ferris into this.

[DGuller]

I'm not aware of any significant population transfer after the annexation.

Last Ukranian census is from 2001, and it had Crimea + Sevastopol at 2.37 million people (60% Russians, 25% Ukranians), in 2014 Russia did a Census of its own that had 2.19 million people (68% Russians, 15% Ukranians).

Going from 2.37 to 2.19 million in Ukraine is about par for the course.  Ukraine population has been shrinking quite badly everywhere.  They went down from 48.4 million to 45.0 million between 2001 and 2014.

[The Brain]

I'm not aware of any significant population transfer after the annexation.

Last Ukranian census is from 2001, and it had Crimea + Sevastopol at 2.37 million people (60% Russians, 25% Ukranians), in 2014 Russia did a Census of its own that had 2.19 million people (68% Russians, 15% Ukranians).

Going from 2.37 to 2.19 million in Ukraine is about par for the course.  Ukraine population has been shrinking quite badly everywhere.  They went down from 48.4 million to 45.0 million between 2001 and 2014.

Careful. The guys responsible for the 1937 Soviet census lived briefly to regret reporting negative growth.